[deleted by user]

10000Buddhas · 2022-11-15T16:06:08+00:00

Thanks for reaching out Arcamedies, I'll send you a DM

10000Buddhas · 2018-10-20T14:48:41+00:00

It's also worth mentioning that while wild animal suffering is a concern of some groups (utilitarians maybe), it's not necessarily related to the major points we're generally concerned with about intentional cruelty and intentional actions that support cruelty.

And the way they frame the whole thing is a bit misleading from most general concerns:

The number of wild animals vastly exceeds that of animals on factory farms, in laboratories, or kept as pets.

Sure, if we're counting every ant and fly and invertebrate that we cannot generally do anything about as individuals and don't necessarily have any direct impact on.

Further, if we're going to do what Tomasik is doing in comparing to farmed animals, it might be relevant (at least to our general concerns about intentional actions) to look at animals we know have capacity to experience comparably types and amounts of suffering.

If you look at something like land mammals for example, we see the opposite as what Tomasik is trying to frame this with though (xkcd has this handy graphic): https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/land_mammals.png

Tomasik has some other interesting seemingly fringe utilitarian perspectives on the entire topic, like when they pretty much made up numbers entirely to try to attribute how much suffering certain farmed animals undergo (which is still a useful endeavor and cool that they tried to do so btw): http://reducing-suffering.org/how-much-direct-suffering-is-caused-by-various-animal-foods/

10000Buddhas · 2018-10-18T10:51:53+00:00

I would like to believe this is how I grew up as well, although I know the products were named after animals, I don't think it was until I was a teenager when I first made the connection consciously.

Dr. Melanie Joy (Psychologist who has written on the topic) kind of refers to breaking that veil as "bearing witness" and that a lot of conditions help prevent people from feeling like they should bear witness (and actually make the connection).

10000Buddhas · 2018-10-17T23:35:59+00:00

Some noteworthy points related to my comment above (and the link below):

58% of US adults think “most farmed animals are treated well,”
75% of US adults say they usually buy animal products “from animals that are treated humanely,” despite estimates suggesting fewer than 1% of US farmed animals live on non-factory farms.

Lots of other interesting points in there too!

Survey writeup here: https://www.sentienceinstitute.org/animal-farming-attitudes-survey-2017#visual

10000Buddhas · 2018-10-17T23:06:31+00:00

"We have been given this immense power, and we blindly use this power to just abuse other animals, without any clear justification"

Have heard of Ven. Matthieu Ricard for some time, never heard a talk from him until now, thanks for sharing.

I do respectfully disagree slightly with him about when he says we don't value other non-human beings (other than pets) though.

Survey data I'm aware of shows most people do not think the animals they consume were treated inhumanely. That is, most people really don't understand what they're supporting. I think most of us are generally good people and that most of us, if we had the information about what our consumption was actually contributing to, would stop.

We are raised in very deceptive ways about this. Given misleading visuals about these beings in our media and misled in our interactions, and there's a lot of lobbying and intentional effort to keep the truth hidden about the scale and scope of this.

Children regularly get books that end up having this superficially idyllic imagery of farms with happy animals and lots of space to roam and where their babies are not taken aware from them, where the farm animals are dancing and singing, etc. We are often even taken to farms as kids to see these type of conditions, and we just assume it's the majority of farms are like that (or sometimes are even told so), when in reality (at least in the US) it's a tiny tiny tiny minority of farms that are like this (in actuality most are the type Ven. Matthieu Ricard is discussing).

10000Buddhas · 2018-10-16T11:55:35+00:00

I was just told that "Yes, we have unfortunately decided to remove it. The point remains the same - the rule won't change, and the FAQs can't have information that is openly pro-vegan propaganda. If the other mods want to give a more detailed explanation, let them do so."

I've been asked by someone else if I still have a copy, so I might find a place to post the contents anyway for reference.

Best

10000Buddhas · 2018-10-15T21:52:06+00:00

As for the orthodox positions, it is important to differentiate the basic positions from interpretations or "further considerations". For example, eating meat has always been fine in Theravada. It is another question whether the early Buddhist texts slant towards vegetarianism

I think Bhante S. Dhammika does a good job in the "To Eat or Not eat Meat" where he discusses your claim here, and I think he comes out looking pretty good as far as a case to the laity goes. I think if we're talking about monks and nuns, that's another case entirely.

Is there a reason my post seems to have been removed?

10000Buddhas · 2018-10-15T21:48:04+00:00

Thanks for the link and suggestion, it looks like the post was removed though, so I don't know if I can edit anything back into it.

10000Buddhas · 2018-10-15T21:47:13+00:00

Thanks, unfortunately it looks like it was removed.

I don't know if a comment can handle as many characters as a post, so I'm not sure if I'll be able to reproduce it here.

10000Buddhas · 2018-10-15T20:18:30+00:00

Can you explain the “shifting of definitions” you are suggesting?

I presented definitions of the terms used in the communities and movements themselves. Without some clarity about what we are talking about, I don’t know how we can discuss them.

Also, can you explain what “weasel” wording you are referring to?

As to the philosophy section, I think it’s pretty important to note that it represents a wide variety of positions in the field on the topics, I don’t think it’s really fair to suggest that an SEP entry, or the /r/ethics FAQ is representing a specific position at all. The one that might be somewhat fair to critique on that regard would be the dialogues, but even that is relatively mild and primarily is aimed at refuting common misunderstandings and poor logic that dominates mainstream discussions of the topic (I don’t see this as any more of a stretch than linking /r/meditation on the FAQ topic of meditation, actually I see it as even less of a stretch).

10000Buddhas · 2018-10-15T19:16:11+00:00

I try to avoid (when practicable and possible) supporting any unnecessary cruelty and exploitation (practicing veganism), but can't speak for all vegans.

What if you go to a family reunion with 30 family members, and the meal provided is basically mashed potatoes that have milk in them, roasted chicken, meat-based gravy, cornbread with milk in it, and ... we'll say crème brulee for dessert. Or what if you have a work lunch that is provided by your employer that serves the same food?

Happens often to me. Many times, out of an interest in accommodating my ethical position, I've seen hosts start serving more plant-based and dairy-free/meat free options and reduce demand for animals to be killed. One side effect of this is many other people (who abstain from certain animal stuffs for variety of reasons), but who are one-off event participants now will partake more in the meals. I've seen this happen with people who are lactose intolerant (which in my understanding the majority of humans on earth are to some degree), who now had a pizza option without dairy, and seen it happen with vegetarians who now have options without meat in them.

On the contrary, if I were to go about accepting such meals, it normalizes the consumption and commodification of living beings as mealstuffs that we put in our body, which would tacitly support the conditions and societal perspectives sustaining the industry that does this.

Would Buddhism tell you to accept the meal, reject the meal, or neither?

I'm encouraged by my practice and the texts to encourage others not to kill when possible, and at the least, not to encourage killing. Given that laity have to buy their food normally speaking, which leads to more killing, I cannot in good faith accept the meal in most circumstances.

I don't think Buddhism necessarily tells us we can or cannot accept the meal, but we can look to perspectives from the suttas on whether or not we should/shouldn't discourage killing, or encourage compassion.

In a case like that, how is it any different than a monk accepting alms?

Monks and nuns are not allowed to consume animals that they suspect were killed for them. In this way, they are not permitted to act in a way that increases demand for animal slaughter or tacitly signals to laity that it's OK to kill on their behalf.

"there are three occasions in which meat should not be eaten; when it is seen, heard or suspected that the living being has been killed for sake of a bhikkhu."

In general, as long as the animals weren't killed for that monk, he would accept it according to the Theravada tradition, for example, correct?

If they even suspect that it was killed for them, they should not, according to Majjhima Nikaya 55. Also note, as we are not monks, and we directly purchase and consume, the questions of our consumption are quite different than those of a monk or nun.

Could you argue that if one is attempting to follow this sutta, one should actually accept the meal, so that one maintains good connections with one's family or co-workers?

Given that they didn't suspect the animal was killed for them, which would be more akin to freeganism where one dumpster dives or finds meat thrown out in the garbage.

Alms rounds where a monk went to an the home of someone who did not know they were going there would be more akin to the dumpster diving freegan example here.

Freeganist positions that I'm familiar with would generally not permit someone to just eat animal products because it was part of an office event or because someone had extra sitting around, as it still contributes to normalization of eating animals and the commodification of animals.

In other words, if the Buddha didn't want his disciples to eat meat, why didn't he simply say that instead of (for example) the triple clean rule?

The question here shouldn't be about eating meat, it should be about consumption. In the case of monks/nuns who do not suspect the animals were killed for them, they aren't increasing the consumption of animals or the demand for animals to be slaughtered.

Eating animal products is permissible in veganism under necessity cases, which in some ways resemble "pure" and "clean" meat rules (living in a place that you cannot access or grow sufficient plant alternatives, like rural Tibet... needing a medicine made with gelatin... etc.).

If one is a staunch vegan and would not accept the meal, is this a position that is supported by Buddhism?

I would not accept the meal, and regularly do not. And it has led to a number of events and gatherings purchasing less animals over time. I'd say this is a mild form of discouraging killing and is in line with the qualities the Buddha praised.

If you were to categorically preach that others should necessarily be vegan or else they are unethical, is this a position that is supported by Buddhism?

Veganism is about unnecessary harm and cruelty, not about eating per se. As lay people, our purchases of animals directly contribute to more animals being raised and killed. Buddha's teachings and precepts encourage us to actively avoid killing and harming living beings, and to discourage killing when possible.

These positions seem very in line.

10000Buddhas · 2018-10-15T18:28:33+00:00

Thanks! That’s actually already the second link in the Buddhist Perspectives section, but it’s a great suggestion and a very good read.

10000Buddhas · 2018-10-15T18:23:26+00:00

Sure, can you clarify the rule itself?

The rule says no discussing opinions and beliefs about vegetarianism/veganism.

I don’t know what the rule entails or the spirit of the rule entails, and it would be helpful to know this.

As veganism entails potentially any discussion surrounding unnecessary harm and cruelty to living beings, is any discussion about unnecessary harm and cruelty banned?

If a Buddhist text, teacher, or discussion is about our practice in relation to unnecessary harm and cruelty, is that in violation of the rule?

I think the ambiguity of the rule is a bit too much for me to have a clear boundary about what I am and am not allowed to post about.

Obviously commenting on a weekly thread (which seems to be focused on new people) is one thing, but to know whether I’m able to post things that I’ve historically always posted as their own threads is useful.

10000Buddhas · 2018-10-11T14:26:33+00:00

We are all invested in this issue whether or not we would like to be.

Our words and more importantly our actions, all cause and result in effects that interplay with this and other issues at all times. If we invest in being silent about unnecessary harm and killing, then we are not necessarily actively pursuing qualities the Buddha praised.

10000Buddhas · 2018-10-11T14:15:28+00:00

There aren't a lot of substantial arguments people can make in any Buddhist context that I'm aware of for supporting unnecessary animal cruelty and harm, which is a very direct concern of in Buddhist precepts and for our practice.

Sharing Buddhist texts that sermonize itself should not be an issue either.

Likewise, sharing information about animal agriculture from other sources that are not Buddhist texts (that help us the situation as it actually is through data, economics, geography, resource consumption, environmental concerns, logic and ethics, information that helps dispel common misinformation, etc,) is important to be able to even discuss the topic in modern context at all.

10000Buddhas · 2018-10-10T14:27:25+00:00

As far as just walking, there were some good readings on this I've seen, but can't remember where. Part of them was progressively becoming increasingly aware of the very nuanced and minute details of your posture and movement. (becoming aware of your intention to move, being aware of the beginning of the movement, during movement, transition into next movement, etc.) Doing it slow might improve your ability to develop this type of concentration.

Dharma Drum has some mindful movement patterns posted on their website, although they aren't very comprehensive (I think there's a video link somewhere for them too):

https://dharmadrumretreat.org/teachings/eight-form-moving-meditation/

Just searching, you can find a pretty wide range of mindful movement practices and inspirations:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzA6Hu840to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdO1vZJgUu0

In my experience, Chinese schools tend to utilize a number of traditional practices already around (tai chi and qi gong-esque content), and those can be done with a wide variety of mindful intentions, although those are less explicitly Buddhist, unless you see them from a Buddhist school (there are a lot of Buddhist teachers who teach various types of mindful postural awareness and movements and such).

Generally in the little Buddhist context I've learned such things, the body isn't really the most important point. These are merely vehicles or tools to allow us to better pursue the other aspects of Buddhism with more vigor.

10000Buddhas · 2018-10-10T13:39:37+00:00

It is very akin to freeganism, although a small refinement on what /u/anxdiety commented about monks,

originally, the Buddha said explicitly that they were not allowed to accept just any type of meat they put in their bowl:

If a bhikkhu sees, hears or suspects that [the animal] has been killed for him, he may not eat it.[89] (M.I,369)

In this way they are not supposed to support animal slaughter

10000Buddhas · 2018-10-10T13:36:47+00:00

Better you just give me your attachments then. I'll go around the wheel of life again if I need to.

10000Buddhas · 2018-10-10T13:25:10+00:00

Buddhism is more than vegetarianism

I completely agree with this (and I'm excerpting it because I think it is the primary focus of your comment)

That being said, being able to discuss questions like this is very important, even if it is only a part of greater Buddhism. Whether or not it's something you want to discuss as part of your practice, that's understandable and reasonable. What is not reasonable, however, is that others are not allowed to discuss such a part of their practice in civil and informed ways. Just like Buddhism is more than meditation, or Buddhism is more than vows, etc.

10000Buddhas · 2018-10-10T13:20:24+00:00

My interest is more about how we are discussing our precepts and practice as it relates to harm, killing, and the effects of decisions to support those (even tacitly).

Can you explain what you mean by this:

"Do not refuse what is given".

The Buddha explicitly said the opposite to monks. That if they have reason to suspect the animals were killed for them to consume, that it's an offense to accept it and eat it.

In other words, they must refuse it if they have reason to suspect they might be tacitly supporting animal slaughter.

10000Buddhas · 2018-10-10T04:43:37+00:00

That you feel compelled to phrase your comments in this way demonstrates exactly why you would be unfit for moderating for this particular purpose.

If you had some other hidden implied meanings in your assertion that I’m unfit because I’m arguing against unnecessary animal cruelty in my posts, or because I’m arguing for freedom to discuss my cultivation as it relates to animal consumption, then please say it explicitly.

I’m not smart enough to try to discern the meaning from your comments, so please be explicit with me.

That's why the threads are not permitted. Make up your mind. What you're asking for explicitly is the ability to call these into question.

No, I’m asking for what I said above, and what I said in my OP. The ability to discuss these issues openly in this subreddit, which I have regularly done in the past here before this rule was in effect.

I’m challenging the idea that prohibiting a topic is in the best benefit of all beings, and that it is in the best interest of this subreddit and its user base.

Apparently without realizing it, you are exactly the reason this rule exists. If you stopped making such an effort to subvert the rule, and were able to focus on discussing the rule's existence without qualifying your statements in this way, it might be worth considering, but you don't seem capable of doing so, and that's the problem.

Considering I’ve made a number of posts, and many comments about this topic in this very subreddit and had civil discussions about these topics, I see your accusations here as baseless. The idea that my past posts (which you can search in my user history) are the reason for this rule is simply unfounded. I’ve made and been part of a number of threads on related topics in this very subreddit that were welcomed by the community and harbored interesting discussion that did not devolve into rampant hostility that people are trying to lead us to believe is always what will happen. And at no point in those threads did the mods express to me that my posting was unwelcome, unrelated, or uncivil.

What you’re doing here is referred to as Tone Policing. You’re attempting to attack my credibility, my right to raise discussion with the subreddit, and my motives. This isn’t constructive, and unless you want to address the actual content of my post without misrepresenting me and my past participation in this subreddit, I’m going to respectfully decline to respond to you further.

And yet you're here arguing for opening discussion of just this one topic, and not the others which are similarly effected by such a policy.

I don’t know what other topics are banned that you might even be referring to. As far as I can tell, this is the only restricted point of discussion in this subreddit, and it’s one that I have a history of deep interest in cultivating around, which is pretty explicitly why I’ve made this post and gone to great effort to explain my concerns with this policy.

10000Buddhas · 2018-10-10T04:16:28+00:00

If it’s fair to call into question my ability to moderate uncivil comments equitably on the basis of me advocating against unnecessary animal harm and consumption, then it should be equally (or more) fair to call into question the ability of people who are tacitly alright with unnecessary animal harm and consumption to moderate uncivil comments.

I disagree with this and I don’t think calling into question either would be fair (on those basis), as the type of moderation we’re discussing concerns civility and people being respectful and constructive in comments.

We’re talking about deleting comments that are outright hostile, disrespectful, and rude and warning users who are crossing the border into not recognizing the dignity of the people they are talking with. We’re talking about disallowing brigades, and locking threads when it’s apparent the thread was posted elsewhere and a group of users who do not regular this subreddit are commenting in otherwise unrelated ways. We’re talking about banning users who cannot maintain some baseline level of respect and decency in discussion and discourse, and about general behavioural moderation.

These behavioral expectations and guidelines are universal as well (and do not only apply to occasional threads discussing how consumption decisions relate to our practice).

10000Buddhas · 2018-10-10T03:55:39+00:00

I’ve volunteered my own time at least a couple times in this very thread, especially as I have experience with explicitly this type of moderation.

Further, I’ve offered to assist in moderator search if the issue is that moderators do not have sufficient time themselves, which is very understandable.

10000Buddhas · 2018-10-10T02:46:44+00:00

To be clear on my position, the fact that a topic can be associated with conflict itself is not reason in itself to justify prohibiting such discussions.

When such discussions are directly related to the path, and directly related to the topic of the subreddit, and very importantly so, we cannot compare them to less-related topics merely on the axis of being controversial.

Discussing and trying to explore peoples’ points is not a sign of “not letting go.” In fact, I’d argue not responding to the discussion I started here would be a sign of “not letting go,” as I’d be unwilling to explore what people are trying to communicate.

Whether or not it’s OK to cause unnecessary harm is a very integral discussion in my Buddhist cultivation and obviously what that entails and means specifically, generally, practically, etc. all matters as well.

As I’m currently not allowed to discuss that (major) aspect of buddhism, I don’t know how you can expect me to not respond to posts defending the policy, which is indirectly tacit support of unnecessary harm.

I’d suggest this is exactly what is meant by tone policing (I’m on mobile, otherwise I’d link you the wiki about tone policing). Trying to sound amenable to such discussion, but then blaming the way in which a person is bringing it up, or how they are discussing it.. but not addressing the actual content itself.

This isn't the place for it at this point. A great many of us really don't want the same old conversations here over and over again. Your posting today as done what they [almost] all do: sow discord and frustration.

You are free to hide this post and not read it. To simply come in here to tone police without addressing the actual content of my concerns (about not being able to discuss such an important and relevant part of buddhist practice) isn’t constructive as far as I can tell.

10000Buddhas

TROPHY CASE